Comments (20)

Hmmmmmm wrote on March 29, 2007 7:14 PM:

This man is SO going to jail.... A whole day of lies before the Senate.... Not even Satan can keep him safe.

DiFi Fan wrote on March 29, 2007 7:22 PM:

Check out Sampson's blink rate.

j swift wrote on March 29, 2007 7:27 PM:

Sampson says they used no consistent process or method to determine who was to be canned. They appeared to use rumor, disgruntled politicos, and word of mouth from acquaintances and collegues. They did not take into account the fate of the high profile and important cases, and they were not trying to quash or hinder political corruption cases. No records kept, no files, no reprimands for their supposed deficiencies....the AG himself says he has nothing to do with it but really did.

Leads one to the inevitable conclusion that one of two things was happening here. Sampson and his superiors and Miers and probably Rove are dirty as hell

or Sampson his superiors and WH counsel are completely incompetent.

I have to go with the former myself, the "I am sorry, we are all incompetent is just to pat."

Bugboy wrote on March 29, 2007 7:43 PM:

Umm ok. And that makes it better? In so many ways, that actually makes it worse.

code word is seed.

Hmmmmmm wrote on March 29, 2007 7:57 PM:

I assume the DOJ has drawn up and indictment for his known lies to Congress (perjury) already? The grand jury should be meeting tomorrow?

Pat wrote on March 29, 2007 9:13 PM:

Posted by: Hmmmmmm :

"This man is SO going to jail.... A whole day of lies before the Senate.... Not even Satan can keep him safe."

You mean Bush?

foggylady wrote on March 29, 2007 9:55 PM:

Sitting here ruining my dinner by watching C-span tv re run of the heraings.
Just noticed how fast this guy lies..
In answering a question, he startd to add something, then said, never mind, I won't ....
Asked what he was going to say, Sampson immediately said, with perfectly bland face, that he had lost his train of thought.
Smarmy and anal retentive...uugghh.

Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 9:56 PM:

of course monica didn't testify today - as she might have - but with her yearbook skills and student body president experience at messiah, the whole nincompoopness of this "process" or lack thereof might have seemed even more strange.

or perhaps that's why she'd have had to take the 5th - if she either lied about her messiah experience (and thus contributed to the DoJ nincompoopness) or there was a process - maybe as careful as a yearbook process - and she just couldn't bring herself to describe it.

the word is "false" - so I'll go with that as the explanation

JT wrote on March 29, 2007 10:09 PM:

Amazing... Your average fast food joint has a better paper trail for firing people than the Justice Department?

So far, Sampson's defense appears to be that he's a really, really bad lawyer, and that his boss employs the same practices.

Can't we just shit-can them now and try and convict them later? Because they haven't shown the qualifications to run a lemonade stand.

What's with the security code revelations? Is this part of some attempt to crack the dictionary?

Anonymous wrote on March 29, 2007 10:13 PM:

just tryint to alleviate tension

"every"

Jerry Sneirson wrote on March 29, 2007 11:07 PM:

What would you expect from one of the Poiliticians. They can't win. If they could tell the truth they would go to jail, but they can't tell the truth so they have to perjure themselves.

Jerry Sneirson wrote on March 29, 2007 11:09 PM:

What would you expect from one of the pOILiticians. They can't win. If they could tell the truth they would go to jail, but the truth is not in their DNA so they have to perjure themselves.

troll_bait wrote on March 29, 2007 11:59 PM:

Furthermore, this quote also stood out as an important one for Sleuthing.

Mr. Sampson: “I personally did not take adequate account of the perception problem that would result,” he said.”

I cannot remember the email clearly, but somewhere in Muckraker there is an email regarding how the administration should prepare themselves for the inevitable push back from Career Justice Department people, USAs and the Political pushback. It was expected, and they had a strategy for avoiding it. If memory serves it was Sampson who wrote that email.

Just a tip, muchy mockers.

troll_bait wrote on March 30, 2007 12:09 AM:

With all this discussion that took place in these hearings about Carol Lam, and Sampson insisting that they never… ever… considered the impact on her ongoing investigations in the Duke & CIA investigations, I couldn’t shake the feeling that the obvious conclusions were being missed by the Senators. This suggests, at the very BEST utter incompetence. This prosecution should have weighed heavily on any “Performance Review” of Carol Lam. It should have weighed positively I mean. This was a monumental case and a huge feather in the cap of the Justice department. And Sampson sitting there saying, “Golly, we never thought about that when we fired her. We were just worried about immigration.” Is simply not credible AT ALL.

Suzan Pixton wrote on March 30, 2007 1:44 AM:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Great editorial today by former US Atty (of 35 years) who supports Josh's theory: the DOJ under Bush is all about fixing elections.

Robin wrote on March 30, 2007 2:46 AM:

Thanks Suzan. A must-read LA Times editorial!

robinb wrote on March 30, 2007 10:02 AM:

Somewhere in Sampson's testimony in response to the "perception" issue Sampson blurted out that (to paraphrase) : they treated Republicans no different.

For a guy that claims politics never entered into this it was a strange remark. I kept waiting for someone to ask him how he knew the political party affiliations of the USA and no one did!

anwaya wrote on March 30, 2007 11:56 AM:

Of course he didn't consider corruption investigations. He was the keeper of the Hit List. He was told who needed to be on it, and only if someone objected could they get off. He wasn't making decisions, he just wrote them down. He's an itty-bitty grocery clerk.

E in MD wrote on March 31, 2007 4:18 PM:

Nobody's going to jail. Not Bush, not Sampson, not this woman claiming the fifth. Know why? Because Bush will end up having his people create another distraction to prevent it from happening, whether it be a supreme court case, a scandal or a raise in the terror alert level. Any time something bad happens for the administration they use a distraction technique to get people to pay attention to something else.

If you have a problem with these tools lying to Congress, then you need to write to you Congress critter and tell them that you demand to see them held accountable. Otherwise nothing is going to happen. Better yet, pick up the phone and schedule an appointment to talk to your Congresscritter in person. They're much more likely to take you seriously if they're forced to meet with you face to face. It's harder to ignore a person than it is an email or a letter or even a phone call.

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:11 AM:

Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye